Gamido vs. New Bilibid Prisons G.R. No. 114829 (1995)

FACTS:

In the Resolution of 7 September 1994, The Court required Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea, to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for making it appear in the jurat of the petition in this case that the petitioner subscribed the verification and swore to before him, as notary public, on 19 April 1994, when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not. In his Explanation, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea admitted having executed the jurat without the presence of petitioner Gamido. The explanation states: “xxx  I did it in the honest belief that since it is jurat and not an acknowledgement. xxx” Then he apologizes to the Court and assures it that henceforth he would be more careful and circumspect.

ISSUE:  WON Atty. Rea’s explanation is satisfactory that he honestly confused Jurat and Acknowledgement.

RULING: No, a jurat which is, normally in this form:

Subscribed and sworn to before me in _______________, this ____ day of ____________, affiant having exhibited to me his Community (before, Residence) Tax Certificate No. ____________ issued at ______________ on ____________.

It is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him. It is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made. The jurat in the petition in the case also begins with the words "subscribed and sworn to me."

To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as one's name; to sign at the end of a document. To swear means to put on oath; to declare on oath the truth of a pleading, etc. Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.

As to acknowledgment, Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:

(a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. (See Lorenzo M. Tañada and Francisco A. Rodrigo, Modern Philippine Legal Forms, vol. II, 1964 Fifth ed., 735).

It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents.

The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner Gamido was not necessary for the jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had been his belief since he was first commissioned as a notary public, then he has been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat. Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or to take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest.